turtledovefandomcom-20200216-history
Talk:German Emperor
Perhaps a note to the effect that we're pretty sure Wilhelm IV is the man in that picture, but not completely certain? The article on Wilhelm IV bears that as a literary comment, and on the Talk page you explained why you felt comfortable hypothesizing. Turtle Fan 05:13, February 28, 2010 (UTC) :Ok. I'm probably going to add a literary comment for Wilhelm III in CN, kind of like what I did over in Dom Pedro II of Brazil and 191, ie, we have good reason to believe he was emperor, but he isn't mentioned, so we can't comment on what he did or didn't do. TR 18:23, February 28, 2010 (UTC) ::All right. I think III's identity is much more firmly rooted in fact than IV's (though IV is pretty solid as well) given that he did his thing in the 40s and 50s. Turtle Fan 19:22, February 28, 2010 (UTC) :::True, but from what we know, the second war with Britain and France was over and done with in the early 1930s, presumably in the last years of Kaiser Bill II's reign. TR 19:25, February 28, 2010 (UTC) ::::Oh, that's right. ::::Maybe Wilhelm II abdicated after 50 years so his son would be able to take the throne while he still had time to learn the ropes? I've always found something vaguely obscene about monarchs who rule for most of a lifetime, and their sons have a tendency to be useless, as though the position of heir apparent has a shelf life. Edward VII is an exception, but his success was due mainly to the fact that he knew he would be a placeholder and devoted most of his energy to keeping the throne warm so that George V could make a real mark on it. Turtle Fan 19:38, February 28, 2010 (UTC) :::::Victor Emanuel and Umberto II of Italy are pefect examples of why the father should consider making way for the son. Most agree that if VE had abdicated a few years earlier, the much better loved and far more capable Umberto could have saved the Italian monarchy. TR 20:18, February 28, 2010 (UTC) ::::::I've heard rumblings that the Brits want Charles to bow out and allow William to succeed Elizabeth. The son is certainly more lovable than the father--Charles has repaired some of the damage to his public image since Diana died, at which point the whole UK wished he were dead in her place and half of them would have lined up to piss on his grave if he were, but he's still the worst of both worlds: He never had the easy charm and common touch of either Diana or their sons, and, thanks to his former caddishness, he forfeited the gravitas and regality that make people feel good about his parents despite their frigidity. Turtle Fan 21:22, February 28, 2010 (UTC) :::::Trying to decide if skipping Charles would be the worst thing....TR 22:01, February 28, 2010 (UTC) ::::I have a hard time seeing how it could be the worst thing. My attitude toward the crown is neutral on a good day, hostile on a bad (really it depends on whether we're talking contemporary or historical British royalty) but I find I do like William quite a lot. He's a man of the times, which Charles is most certainly not. He's got the rarefied aristocratic bearing that the Brits surely require of their monarch, but he's not elitist nor out of touch. He shows no signs of becoming a national embarrassment like Charles and his brothers did a generation ago; that's Harry's department, though even he's been pretty well behaved for years now. If I were a Brit I'd feel far happier about having William as head of state. ::::I really don't see anything positive that Charles has going for him. All I can think of is that, as he's already sixty-one and there's no end in sight to Elizabeth's reign (early next year she will pass George III for the second-longest reign in British history) by the time the question comes to a head he may have so little time left that cock-blocking him won't be worth the bother. ::::Anyone else notice how old most monarchs seem to be? The Queen of the UK and the Commonwealth, the Emperor of Japan, the King of Thailand, the King of Saudi Arabia, and of course the Pope, all over eighty. The King of Norway, the Queen of Denmark, the King of the Belgians, the King of Spain, all over seventy. The Kings of Morocco, Jordan, Sweden, Cambodia, and the Grand Duke of Luxembourg are younger, but most of them will either be past their three score and ten soon or only recently inherited the throne from another geezer. The King of Cambodia's father, who voluntarily abdicated in 2004, is still alive at 88. The deposed king of Afghanistan died in '07 at 93, and the last King of Hungary, for whom we have an article around here somewhere, is almost 100. Turtle Fan 01:11, March 1, 2010 (UTC) Southern Victory Note "When Wilhelm II dies in The Victorious Opposition, it is announced his successor is called both "Friedrich I of Germany" and "Friedrich Wilhelm V of Prussia". ... "The matter confuses even more in Return Engagement when there is a reference to "Kaiser Friedrich Wilhelm," mixing and matching his two previously given designations." The part about RE talks of mix and matching two previous designations but the reference in VO is for "Friedrich Wilhelm V of Prussia" which is exactly the same. Some further work is needed here. ML4E (talk) 16:12, September 2, 2015 (UTC) :I pared that section down to the see alsos. We have a discussion at the inconsistencies page and at the page on the Crown Prince. We don't need it over and over again. TR (talk) 18:00, September 2, 2015 (UTC) "Second Reich" in UA Hitler and the Nazis called their time the "Third Reich", and retroactively dubbed the HRE and the Kaiserreich the 1st and 2nd Reich, respectively. As Hitler as the narrator of UA, I think we're meant to understand that Hitler has unofficially dubbed the UA the Second Reich, but it is not somehow the "official name". TR (talk) 21:59, July 15, 2018 (UTC)